Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

What's all the fuss about 'Slumdog Millionaire'?

Related films

Milk (2008)
Blood Diamond (2006)
Sunshine (1973)
28 Days Later… (2002)
The Beach (2000)
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Shallow Grave (1994)

Related people

What's all the fuss about 'Slumdog Millionaire'?

Danny Boyle's critical darling 'Slumdog Millionaire' has made a killing at the box office and is now being lavished with awards. Tom Huddleston can't quite understand why

Danny Boyle’s new film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ has taken the movie world by storm. Adapted from the popular novel ‘Q&A’ by Vikas Swarup, it tells the story of a poor Mumbai street urchin who grows up to be a telemarketing assistant, and finally a contestant on India’s version of ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ The film has already won Best Drama at the Golden Globes, and looks set to sweep the BAFTAS, and very possibly the Oscars.

There’s no sense arguing that ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is an out-and-out bad film, it isn’t. There’s a lot to enjoy: Anthony Dod Mantle’s vivid cinematography, some bracingly kinetic action sequences and, for the first hour at least, an exuberant and dynamic sense of adventure. The flashback sequences are, for the most part, well constructed, and nicely acted by a gaggle of precocious pre-teen non-actors. Simply as a window into another world, one most of us rarely get to see, ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ justifies it’s existence.

But best film of the year? Feelgood film of the year? This is a story which features every kind of degradation: poverty, child prostitution, murder, theft, blackmail, religious intolerance, vicious exploitation. A nine-year-old boy has his eyes burned out with acid, and yet audiences are still apparently strolling from cinemas whistling AR Rahman’s dire (yet inexplicably BAFTA-nominated) bhangrabeat soundtrack. There’s something disturbing about a film which depicts such abject horrors and still manages to end on such an upbeat note: it’s like if Schindler’s List ended with a song ‘n’ dance number. By allowing audiences to leave the cinema happy, doesn’t the film also allow them to conveniently forget all the earlier horror?

But the political aspect of ‘Slumdog’ could be debated endlessly, as could any film that hijacks a serious subject for entertainment purposes: ‘Blood Diamond’, ‘Milk’, pretty much any wartime adventure. The arguments for either side are clear: on the one hand, the filmmakers are exploiting real life suffering for financial gain, on the other they’re drawing attention to an otherwise ignored issue. ‘Slumdog’ throws this argument into sharp relief because the gulf between the horrors it depicts and the third-act outcome is so yawning, but it doesn’t, in the end, bring any kind of closure to a discussion that will doubtless rage as long as movies are being made.

And besides, ‘Slumdog’ has far more serious problems to contend with than a little cultural exploitation. Danny Boyle has a longstanding habit of making films which set themselves up competently – often battering audiences into submission with a combination of snappy camera moves, smash editing and loud, infectious music – before collapsing into nonsensical contrivance in the last act: think ‘Shallow Grave’, ‘The Beach’, ’28 Days Later’ and especially the tragic waste of a good concept that was ‘Sunshine’. ‘Slumdog’ follows this template slavishly.

The first hour of the film contains some genuinely memorable moments: a headlong chase through the slum streets, a shocking moment of mass racial violence and that excruciating, haunting blinding scene. But it’s all gone to hell by act three, as the script’s focus narrows and the three protagonists age from naïve, scrappy slum kids to increasingly unlikely and unlikeable teenagers. The love triangle that develops between them, with tedious inevitability, serves to completely stifle the film’s forward momentum, as it stops being an exploration of India’s poverty problem and becomes a trite, histrionic and predictable melodrama of coincidence played out between the three awkward, uninvolving heroes and a troupe of identikit snarling gangsters.

The common defence for the film’s wildly unconvincing finale, and particularly that shockingly crass climactic dance number, is that Boyle is appropriating and subverting the motifs of Bollywood cinema for his own ends. But this technique simply doesn’t work, so it feels like we’ve wandered from a fairly intelligent, well-made and compelling hardship drama into a cack-handed West End musical with as much narrative integrity and character insight as an episode of ‘Hollyoaks’.

I’ve refrained, thus far, from discussing the film’s framing narrative, but it can’t be ignored any longer. The idea of constructing a film around a quiz, and showing how the characters arrived at their knowledge of particular questions, is an intriguing one. But it’s as though Boyle can’t wait to shake off the restrictions imposed by this device and let loose – the narrative logic behind each new answer becomes increasingly strained and coincidental. We’re also asked to believe that a TV executive, albeit a particularly surly third world TV executive with a creepy beard, would tie a quiz contestant up and apply electrodes to his chest. We were expecting Jamal to face a few tough questions, but nobody was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

The other problem with these sequences is right there up front: Dev Patel. Now, I’m not going to start gouging chunks out of a young, relatively inexperienced actor in his first big role, but Patel simply lacks onscreen charisma, particularly when compared to the sparky, naturalistic and compelling performances of his younger counterparts Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda. Just as we’re never told exactly how Jamal comes to learn English – and speak it with barely a trace of an accent – it’s also left to us to figure out where his personality disappeared to. The awards buzz surrounding Patel’s performance seems completely out of proportion, and even slightly patronising.

But we expect the big awards voters to get it wrong – they do so every year without fail, with the most deserving films receiving scant reward. What’s surprising is that audiences and critics seemed to have been sucked in by ‘Slumdog’ too – it’s arguably the best reviewed film of the past six months, and has been doing extraordinary business both here and in the US. It seems (and probably is) churlish to begrudge a homegrown hit a chance at success, but ‘Slumdog’ simply doesn’t deserve it, not when there’s so much out there more deserving of an audience’s time and hard-earned dollars.

Author: Tom Huddleston

Bookmark
|
Print
Send to a friend

User comments on this story

Callum said...

I disagree completely with Tom Huddleston's appraisal of Slumdog Millionaire - I loved it - but I defend to the hilt his right to rant madly at a movie he doesn't get. There is nothing so annoying as absolutely hating a film that everyone else seems to love - as I discovered with the aforementioned Crash a few years back - and giving your chosen hateful movie both barrels in an impassioned hatchet job is the best catharsis there is. I know, I've been there - hope you feel better as a result, Tom! Posted on Jan 30 2009 00:32

Report as inappropriate
cibee said...

Sorry not all, but most ;) Posted on Jan 29 2009 11:49

Report as inappropriate
cibee said...

@ Vijay - what theme are you talking about? Themes that touch the chord or themes that sell? And no one said that Slumdog is a bad movie. It is watchable, but definitely not the best of the lot. Or maybe we have difference in our choice (if u liked Crash then we ofcourse do). And whats with 'Waltz with Bashir'? I liked it. Maybe you should watch Majid Majidi's - all his movies are 'theme' based and based on children - hence the comparison. Posted on Jan 29 2009 11:49

Report as inappropriate
Vijay said...

Cibee- I am on a break...thats why I am commenting here. Slumdog is not a good movie says YOU. But not everyone and importantly not the folks giving out the awards. I can see you did not like Crash and your choice is clear....movies with a theme dont score well for you. Give yourself a break..watch 'Waltz with Bashir'!! Posted on Jan 29 2009 09:26

Report as inappropriate
cibee said...

Vijay, Slumdog is not ofcourse the first movie that albeit being not a great moview is winning the awards. Watch the 2006 'Best Motion Picture of the Year' - Crash and you will know. If you still have doubts, time you gave yourself a break. Posted on Jan 29 2009 04:28

Report as inappropriate
Vijay said...

If it is a not-so-good movie why the awards? I can see some argue that there is not much good around at this point of time. Is this true?
Are we suggesting that the Golden Globe, BAFTA and Oscar teams are actually buying the poverty theme of Slumdog?
Give us a break!! Posted on Jan 28 2009 15:29

Report as inappropriate
Confused plotter said...

I agree with Mr Huddleston. Why the audience has bought so heavily into this contrived nonsense is a mystery. Of course people more now than ever are looking to 'feel good' (vide Full Monty's success 6 months after Lady Dianas passing), but it seemed to me that the dreadful plotting and characterisation would have rendered this almost impossible.
For a girl who inspires a lifelong search to find her, Latika as a teen and adult is given no character traits whatsoever that would seem to justify Jamal's love for her, and whilst pretty, is actually completely vacant. Why is he bothering? (As he keeps pointing out, there's 18 million people in this city - yes there is, go and find one with a personality!)
And was no one else bothered by the fact that the whole film is based on coincidence after coincidence? He, by chance, has experienced episodes in his life which give him the answer to a random set of questions. This makes the film about chance, not undying love. If a character relies on luck to resolve his dramatic situation, its simply not involving. The films lame answer "It is written." Well in that case, there was never any doubt anyway, and the whole things has been a waste of our time.
Of course, he's not doing it for the money, but the last question is handled ridiculously - he has already won 10 million rupees, sees the final question, does not know the answer and decides to try and answer it even though he is already famous throughout the city. And its stupidly easy too - most people in my screening knew the answer, isn't this supposed to be the hardest question?
I suppose the vitriol directed towards the film represents a cry of anguish from those of us who would like to think that audiences (and critics) would demand a little more from a film before raising it to such elevated heights. The idea of a 'feel good' film does not inherently mean it has to be stupid, but this one is, and its success mystifying and slightly annoying because it tells us something uncomfortable about ourselves as a viewing group ie. cute kids in danger plus unbelievable happy ending equals most succesful film of year.
Feel good? How depressing. Posted on Jan 28 2009 10:45

Report as inappropriate
Ian said...

A refreshing, intelligent and imaginative film, but it should be put into the context that there really is not much in the way of competition at the moment. Despite what the critics (and film industry) say, there have been too few really worthwhile films around. Mind you, I regarded Mama Mia as just about the worst film I'd ever seen, so perhaps I'm not a good judge. Posted on Jan 28 2009 08:39

Report as inappropriate
Nav said...

Hmmm - Let's see. So Latika is orphaned at what I can estimate to be somewhere between the ages of 5-7. She is left behind (by her true loves apathetic brother) to contend with the exploits of an evil gangster who forces her into a life of child prostitution. She is found by her true love (in a city of 18 million), and rescued, resulting in the killing of her captor. She is then forced to have sex with her true loves apathetic brother, only to be lost to her true love once more. She is AGAIN found by her true love (in a city of 18 million), this time living as a girlfriend/whore of a fat ugly gangster. Her face is then slashed as she attempts to reunite with her true love, and she is returned to fat ugly gangster. Apathetic brother converts to sympathetic brother, and gives her his phone, and her freedom. She barely answers the phone in time as her true love is competing on a televised game show and does not know the answer to the question (she’s his “phone a friend”), but she does not know the answer either. He wins anyways! They dance the jig…the end…ain’t love grand. Naysayers, this is exactly how a met my wife! Posted on Jan 28 2009 01:39

Report as inappropriate
Victor said...

Did Shelly Deegan or Gwendolen even read the review? You're guilty of the accusations you make! What the reviewer is conveying, is that although a "good" movie, he does not understand, nor agree that this is the best movie of the year, and it is not. The monikers "feel good" and "best" have been doled out by the media very liberally. Not the fault of the director, Danny Boyle, who has made a thoroughly entertaining movie. Please re-read the article before you work yourself up so vehemently. The third paragraph sums up Mr. Huddleston’s sentiments of the movie. The scenes I found absurd were (1.) when Jamal manages to half talk his way into the mobsters compound, and upon the mobsters return home from mobstering, asks for a sandwich from Latika, who is nervously hanging out with the new dishwasher for some reason, she hands him buttered bread, he hates it, and then throws them both out (rather three stoogish), (2.) the scene where the thugs cut Latika's face??? What was the rationale? (3.) and the condescending manner of the game show host (your argument can be, "well that is how hosts interact with contestants in India", but it all seemed contrived). An enjoyable movie that left no lasting emotion or feeling with me afterward. A quick poll from the three people I saw the movie with (responses were “good” and “okay, I enjoyed it”), and then the subject was closed. Posted on Jan 27 2009 21:01

Report as inappropriate
Shelly Deegan said...

Quite the most extraordinary pile of vitriol i have read in a long time! The film may not leave th audience feeling bludgened with guilt about their lucky western lifestyles. But surely the reviewer has missed the point? There are terrible things happening all over the world - but too force wretched narratives down peoples throats with no respite - does not work. What is appealing about Slum Dog is that it explores exploitatiion and neglect of children yet offers no easy answres. Audiences are intelligent enough themselves to make up their own minds about the injustices shown on screen - leaving the cinema weeping is hardly any guarantee of mobilising any support for the plight suffered by the thousands of kids who live on the streets globally. If the role of art is to open our eyes to a world we prefer to turn away from - they Slum Dog has succedded magnificenly - it is naive and rather pointelss to lecture an audience and guilt trip them - if the human spirit is as indominatable as the story suggests then surely we can take the initiative and make some small difference in our own ways without being dictated to and have any meaning imposed on us. Danny Boyle took a difficlult subject and injected a frenetic energy and passion which left me as a viewer exhausted from the roller coaster ride. It is a brilliaint film with some flaws - but isnt it easy to critised than find the the glimmers of perfection? Posted on Jan 27 2009 14:16

Report as inappropriate
Gwendolen said...

I agree 100% with J. W. Riley (see below) I'm afraid, and this 'reviewer' - obviously relishing the title as if royalty, is simply finding an arguement for the sake of needing one - desperately - so as to 'seperate' himself from the majority's appraisal of this film. He enjoys his rant (as I am going to call it): you can almost hear the frustration with the film dripping from the corners of his mouth, but he has acted too fast and argues without seeing the true viewpoint of Slumdog's positive reviews. He would have us all believe that WE, the ones happy with the film, have acted too speedily, however I am sure it is the reverse. In this movie I personally noted the love-story, and, hopefully in avoiding the cliches, I can go so far as to say it was the central plot driving the film. People seem obsessed with child hardship, and geo-politcal issues because this movie takes place in India's slums, but there is so much to be said for the characters' resillient and resourceful love story, arguably the film's core. After all Jamal is only appearing on 'Millionaire' to find her: the money and therefore his poverty, were never a priority. I think we should behave like Jamal, and focus upon Latika and what she represents. The suffering depicted is horrific, and people should not dismiss it: they only prove their own short-sightedness if they do. However it is not the film's focus, does it deserve your hate for this? You are patronising of us, the audience, if you believe there was not enough suffering shown...we need it hammered into us do we? From every angle in each scene I suppose? We are unable to remember any of the cruelty we saw is your rude presumption. If it is a story of devotion, passion and action on a personal level between Jamal, Latika and the viewer, why the unending criticism on a film's lack of regular, hard-hitting social comment? They are Jamal's experiences, these are his memories we live through, and he is the one who must overcome them. If he did not, the film would simply devolve into a psychological drama concerning a traumatised childhood that inevitably has an unhappy ending. There is plenty of film and television adapted to this genre for us to enjoy on another day, meanwhile there is Jamal, whose memories have taught resillience and hope. There is humour in Jamal's story, is that uncomfortable to you? All I can assume is that you have gone in prepared for a tragic, socio-political poverty picture and are unable to be flexible. This suggests to me an actual lack of reality in your mindset, not the film's, as you choose to believe there is only suffering and cruelty: and people like Jamal could not exist?..there is humour all the time in life, and there is cruelty, (often the two go hand in hand). The dance at the story's conclusion is not distasteful, it is simply a celebration, Boyle choosing to refer to an Indian/Bollywood tradition in his positive conclusion for the lovers. Of course they have a happy ending! It would deem the film pointless if they did not, as, lest we forget, Jamal and Latika are the focus of this movie. They deserve their ending, they have earned it, making them far more endearing, romantic and impressive than the cutesy couples of typical rom-coms. (Meanwhile of all things to attempt influence over your readers with: hitting AR Rahman's perfectly fitting score over the head with your rolled up copy of Timeout seems a little unnecessary, wouldn't you agree?) The ones who argue the film lacks enough cold depiction of suffering or that the characters are not depressed enough are proving that they have missed the moral of the story - (very efficiently of course) - by themselves, failing to enjoy a film designed...well...to be enjoyed... In juxtaposition to Huddleston's embarrassment, please see Empire Magazine's review of this film: it does not deny it its positivity. Perhaps the negative feel almost superior? No, it is we who pity you: paying for a ticket and not actually seeing a film properly? What a waste of a seat!..someone could have had a lovely time. Posted on Jan 26 2009 21:28

Report as inappropriate
James said...

Your right it isn't a feel good film - but it is a good film especially put into the context of what else is around at the moment. Posted on Jan 26 2009 15:03

Report as inappropriate
cob said...

not possible to show undernourished and deprived children in film as ctors surely pathos in it bad enough and have not other peopl considered sometimes we all have to use dramatic and also poetic license!as films about india go it avoided the suggarey sweet hindustan of bollywood and did give a glimpse into te sheer brutal existence of life for the majority of folk in india anyone who knows india will know of the hoorific communal violence not so long ago in gujarat and how it still simmers and the fear the average indian has of the polce and so what is so wrong with some fairystory elements we all need those hondustan included!! Posted on Jan 26 2009 12:10

Report as inappropriate
A Patel said...

For everyone who is complaining that we should simply enjoy this movie and not pick it apart...hello it's being nominated and winning prestigious awards! It has to be picked apart if it's getting awards, no one is going to sit around and waste their time dissecting Bride Wars. And as the author is a film critic, he is simply doing what film critics do. Duh. Posted on Jan 26 2009 01:09

Report as inappropriate